Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>DavidR wrote:
>>>"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>David Hansen wrote:

>>>>That is a lie. No-one has ever claimed that. There is always the (remote
>>>>and, for practical purposes, negligible) possibility that the driver of
>>>>a motor vehicle will lose control of the vehicle and mount the pavement.
>>>>If it happens, it is clearly an unhappy situation, but it is
>>>>non-deliberate. But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the footway, that
>>>>is a *deliberate* decision to pose a risk to pedestrians like me and
>>>>unacceptable for that reason.

>>>The person riding their bike on a pavement is trying to get fom one
>>>place to another by the means that to them is perceived as being safest.

>>Of what possible relevance are their desires or their perception?

> I am refuting your claim that there is "a *deliberate* decision to pose a
> risk to pedestrians ". Don't change the subject.

At the very highest, you are merely *trying* to refute something (but
failing). Perhaps you don't actually know what "refute" means and are using
it in the football commentator's (incorrect) sense.

Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians (it's also dangerous for
cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern here).
Deliberate decisions to ride a bike on the footway are deliberate decisions
to cause danger to any pedestrians who may be encountered.

End of story.

There isn't anything to add.

>>Are they empowered to make the decisions as to where they may or may not
>>cycle? What about the safety of those who use (or wish to use) the
>>footway for *legitimate* purposes?

>>>The added risk (neglible) to pedestrians is a function of riding on the
>>>pavement. To suggest there is a decision to pose a risk to pedestrians
>>>is completely riduculous.

I'd re-read that if I were you. I'm sure it can't be what you wish you'd said.

>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others, but
>>there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether others
>>are harmed.

> Some probably are. Most are merely annoying rather than actually reckless.

A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any moment
(particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in such
circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those innocent others.

I really can't understand what you lot think you are achieving with this
consistent support for law-breaking. If a motor-bike (even a moped) was
driven along the footway, you'd have an apoplectic fit.

 

[jtaylor]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> when I've never had a motorist drive past
> me on a crossing and I've never encountered a motorist driving furiously
[snip...] shouting obscenities at me.

You must not ride a bicycle on the highway, then.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:40:20 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:14:09 +0100 someone who may be Steve Firth
> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>Someday you can tell me why my fears as a pedestrian are always answered by
>>cyclists pointing at motorists, when I've never had a motorist drive past
>>me on a crossing
>
> You need to take off those special glasses that only allow through
> the wrong things cyclists do. Most pedestrians I know have seen
> motorists and cyclists pass them on crossings.

And I know what I have experienced.

>>and I've never encountered a motorist driving furiously
>>along the pavement shouting obscenities at me.
>
> So far I have been run over twice by motorists driving along the
> pavement, who then shouted obscenities at me.

Perhaps you have that effect on them.

> I have yet to be run over by a cyclist.

I'll try to make a point to help you out next time I'm on a bike. FWIW, I
was run down by a cyclist passing a red light and suffered a fractured
skull in consequence when I was 18. Said cyclist also had no lights on hte
bike and had no method of making a warning, and indeed couldn't even be
arsed to shout. He also attempted to leave the scene of the accident, was
forcibly restrained by a group of enraged pedestrians and had no insurance
and claimed penury in court.

Huge is right, compulsory registration, compulsory insurance, safety
inspections and VED are long overdue for cyclists.

>>It's a daily occurrence with cyclists.
>
> Perhaps you have that effect on them.

And the rest of the inhabitants of any major conurbation?

 

[DavidR]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>DavidR wrote:
>>>>"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>That is a lie. No-one has ever claimed that. There is always the
>>>>>(remote
>>>>>and, for practical purposes, negligible) possibility that the driver
>>>>>of
>>>>>a motor vehicle will lose control of the vehicle and mount the
>>>>>pavement.
>>>>>If it happens, it is clearly an unhappy situation, but it is
>>>>>non-deliberate. But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the footway,
>>>>>that
>>>>>is a *deliberate* decision to pose a risk to pedestrians like me and
>>>>>unacceptable for that reason.
>
>>>>The person riding their bike on a pavement is trying to get fom one
>>>>place to another by the means that to them is perceived as being
>>>>safest.
>
>>>Of what possible relevance are their desires or their perception?
>
>> I am refuting your claim that there is "a *deliberate* decision to pose
>> a
>> risk to pedestrians ". Don't change the subject.
>
> At the very highest, you are merely *trying* to refute something (but
> failing). Perhaps you don't actually know what "refute" means and are
> using it in the football commentator's (incorrect) sense.

Perhaps you confuse me with someone that has an interest in football?

refute ~ verb, to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is
wrong or false

Your opinion is wrong. Looks ok.

> Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians (it's also dangerous
> for cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern
> here). Deliberate decisions to ride a bike on the footway are deliberate
> decisions to cause danger to any pedestrians who may be encountered.

Your opinion is wrong.

>>>Are they empowered to make the decisions as to where they may or may not
>>>cycle? What about the safety of those who use (or wish to use) the
>>>footway for *legitimate* purposes?
>
>>>>The added risk (neglible) to pedestrians is a function of riding on the
>>>>pavement. To suggest there is a decision to pose a risk to pedestrians
>>>>is completely riduculous.
>
> I'd re-read that if I were you. I'm sure it can't be what you wish you'd
> said.

Looks ok to me apart from the typo.

>>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others,
>>>but
>>>there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether others
>>>are harmed.
>
>> Some probably are. Most are merely annoying rather than actually
>> reckless.
>
> A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
> moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
> such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
> innocent others.

If it is dangerous where are the bodies?

> I really can't understand what you lot think you are achieving with this
> consistent support for law-breaking. If a motor-bike (even a moped) was
> driven along the footway, you'd have an apoplectic fit.

I do not support or excuse pavement riding. I am merely responding to your
opinion that there is a "deliberate decision to cause danger".

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:59:26 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
>
>> Note that if a cyclist was not to follow the instructions on the
>> signs then they would be cycling the wrong way along a one-way
>> street.
>
> Sorry, what is unusual or noteworthy about that? Cycling the wrong way
> along a one way street is a national pastime among the lycra brigade.

The assumption is that the cyclist is obeying the sign because of being law
abiding.

I'm glad to see that my cycling is exempted from your criticism. Once you're
onto the cheapish M&S clothes brigade, then I'll have to start addressing
your points.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:43:20 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> Or this rabble of yobs on a shared use path.
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/40.JPG
>
> The young lady at the front has found location use for her funny
> hat.
>
> I note that the trolls were unable to counter your points.

I see few trolls in this thread.

 

[Jonathan Schneider]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes:

> Huge is right, compulsory registration, compulsory insurance, safety
> inspections and VED are long overdue for cyclists.

And pedestrians too ?

How would this work in practice given that the administration cost of
such systems would be way more than the value of a bike ?

It would however put a load of people back into their cars and
suddenly gridlock roads and destroy air quality everywhere. Oh and
make this country the laughing stock of the world.

Jon

 

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>DavidR wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>The person riding their bike on a pavement is trying to get fom one
>>>>>place to another by the means that to them is perceived as being
>>>>>safest.

>>>>Of what possible relevance are their desires or their perception?

>>>I am refuting your claim that there is "a *deliberate* decision to pose
>>>a risk to pedestrians ". Don't change the subject.

>>At the very highest, you are merely *trying* to refute something (but
>>failing). Perhaps you don't actually know what "refute" means and are
>>using it in the football commentator's (incorrect) sense.

> Perhaps you confuse me with someone that has an interest in football?

Don't speak in football-managerese then. You'll be sick as a parrot next.

> refute ~ verb, to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is
> wrong or false

Wrong. It means to *demonstrate* that something is incorrect. Just saying
it's incorrect (which is all you do) is called denial - and that's what
you're in regarding the danger to pedestrians caused by selfish bike-riding
yobs who arrogate the footway as a track for their bikes.

> Your opinion is wrong. Looks ok.

That's an example of denial.

Not a refutation.

And it's incorrect.

>>Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians (it's also dangerous
>>for cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern
>>here). Deliberate decisions to ride a bike on the footway are deliberate
>>decisions to cause danger to any pedestrians who may be encountered.

> Your opinion is wrong.

It is not merely my opinion that cycling on the footway is dangerous to
pedestrians - it is also the settled opinion of Parliament and the law -
which is why it's (still) an offence.

>>>>Are they empowered to make the decisions as to where they may or may not
>>>>cycle? What about the safety of those who use (or wish to use) the
>>>>footway for *legitimate* purposes?

>>>>>The added risk (neglible) to pedestrians is a function of riding on the
>>>>>pavement. To suggest there is a decision to pose a risk to pedestrians
>>>>>is completely riduculous.

>>I'd re-read that if I were you. I'm sure it can't be what you wish you'd
>>said.

> Looks ok to me apart from the typo.

You surprise me. Or perhaps you don't.

>>>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others,
>>>>but yhere is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether
>>>>others are harmed.

>>>Some probably are. Most are merely annoying rather than actually
>>>reckless.

>>A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
>>moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
>>such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
>>innocent others.

> If it is dangerous where are the bodies?

There are reported injuries every year. Another poster was very honest - he
said he didn't think the reported injuries (there'll be many more
unreported of course) were important. You are trying to pretend there are none.

>>I really can't understand what you lot think you are achieving with this
>>consistent support for law-breaking. If a motor-bike (even a moped) was
>>driven along the footway, you'd have an apoplectic fit.

> I do not support or excuse pavement riding.

Then WHY KEEP TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT?

> I am merely responding to your
> opinion that there is a "deliberate decision to cause danger".

It causes danger. That is known by the cyclist in advance. The decision to
ride on the footway is deliberate one (unless it can be shown that they
all end up there by accident).

QED.

Give up that foolishness, for God's sake.

 

[JNugent]

Watch out, everyone... there's a cracker coming up...

Tom Crispin wrote [re footway cycling]:

> One fatality in four years prove it not to be dangerous ...

Good job footway cycling isn't dangerous, eh? God knows what would happen
if it were. Someone might get killed...

Ooops...

 

[JNugent]

ian henden wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>Two weeks ago I counted 54 bikes in the bike sheds at the inner London
>>>>>primary school where I teach.
>>>>>On a cold December day there were 37.
>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=120403782&size=l
>>>>>3 belong to staff.

>>>><sharp intake of breath>
>>>>I don't often indulge in this sort of thing (as ukt regulars will know) -
>>>>but have you ever thought of getting a life?

>>>What's that supposed to mean? That counting bikes to monitor the
>>>effectiveness or otherwise of providing cycle training to young
>>>children is a worthless activity?

>>Since you clearly know what causes seasonal variation in the numbers...
>>yes. That you can remember the numbers just like that on a Sunday morning
>>beggars belief.

> No it doesn't.

I'm afraid that it does.

Others have commented on that poster's "hobbies" in different terms.

I couldn't possibly comment further (and won't)...

[ ... ]

> I don't totally agree with his pro-cycle bias, but do please be fair!!!

I have been more than fair to that poster. I don't, for instance, suggest
that he shouldn't follow his hobby/ies or that anyone should be effectively
applauded for endangering him whilst he is going about his business.

Have we had the same courtesy from him? All he does is make excuses for
dangerous behaviour because the danger is caused a group who are beyond
criticism as far as he is concerned.

 

[Clive George]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ian henden wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>>>>Two weeks ago I counted 54 bikes in the bike sheds at the inner London
>>>>>>primary school where I teach.
>>>>>>On a cold December day there were 37.
>>>>>>http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=120403782&size=l
>>>>>>3 belong to staff.
>
>>>>><sharp intake of breath>
>>>>>I don't often indulge in this sort of thing (as ukt regulars will
>>>>>know) - but have you ever thought of getting a life?
>
>>>>What's that supposed to mean? That counting bikes to monitor the
>>>>effectiveness or otherwise of providing cycle training to young
>>>>children is a worthless activity?
>
>>>Since you clearly know what causes seasonal variation in the numbers...
>>>yes. That you can remember the numbers just like that on a Sunday morning
>>>beggars belief.
>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> I'm afraid that it does.
>
> Others have commented on that poster's "hobbies" in different terms.
>
> I couldn't possibly comment further (and won't)...

Do you mean the "hobbies" which are in fact his job?

Here's a man who's doing what you keep on asking for, ie getting cyclists
properly trained, and you can't even support this. Sad...

clive

 

[Mark Thompson]

> A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
> moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
> such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
> innocent others.

It is pf course perfectly possible to take this into account, and ride
accordingly. The cyclist will then be putting peds in no danger. Problem
is that, as always, people are twunts and most/many don't do it.

 

[JNugent]

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
>>moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
>>such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
>>innocent others.

> It is pf course perfectly possible to take this into account, and ride
> accordingly.

Of course it is - "accordingly" means on the carriageway.

> The cyclist will then be putting peds in no danger. Problem
> is that, as always, people are twunts and most/many don't do it.

We know... :-(

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> ian henden wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>> [ ... ]

>>>>>>> Two weeks ago I counted 54 bikes in the bike sheds at the inner
>>>>>>> London
>>>>>>> primary school where I teach.
>>>>>>> On a cold December day there were 37.
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=120403782&size=l
>>>>>>> 3 belong to staff.

>>>>>> <sharp intake of breath>
>>>>>> I don't often indulge in this sort of thing (as ukt regulars will
>>>>>> know) - but have you ever thought of getting a life?

>>>>> What's that supposed to mean? That counting bikes to monitor the
>>>>> effectiveness or otherwise of providing cycle training to young
>>>>> children is a worthless activity?

>>>> Since you clearly know what causes seasonal variation in the
>>>> numbers... yes. That you can remember the numbers just like that on
>>>> a Sunday morning beggars belief.

>>> No it doesn't.

>> I'm afraid that it does.
>> Others have commented on that poster's "hobbies" in different terms.
>> I couldn't possibly comment further (and won't)...

> Do you mean the "hobbies" which are in fact his job?

> Here's a man who's doing what you keep on asking for, ie getting
> cyclists properly trained, and you can't even support this. Sad...

You are mistaken.

I do NOT keep asking for that. I have never asked for it. I merely ask for
cyclists to ride lawfully.

I have never had a single bike riding lesson in my life, but when I ride a
bike, I manage to remember to stay off the footway, to stop at red traffic
lights and to take proper notice of "give way" and "no entry" signs. I have
managed that since about the age of 11. Training is clearly not essential
to the observance of those rules - is it?

The poster's comments (some of them just plain silly) speak for themselves
as to his professionalism. He keeps making excuses for dangerous,
anti-social, behaviour. That's not what professionals do.

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
> > Conor wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
> > >>Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
> > >>cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes there is. Perhaps if you'd ever had any lessons in how to use the
> > > roads you ride on, you'd know.
> > >
> > Perhaps you'd care to explain that assertion. Please feel free to use
> > diagrams from the Highway Code if you think they'll help you.
>
> To overtake a cycle safely you must give it x metres. A cyclist's right
> arm will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle is x + y metres from the curb.
>
> To overtake two cycles, you must give the one on the right x metres.
> That cyclist will be z metres from the inside cyclist's right arm,
> which will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle needs to be x + y + z metres from the curb.
>
> Therefore to overtake cyclists two-abreast safely you need an
> additional z metres (probably arround 1 metre) than overtaking one
> safely.

you are discounting Z being a negative number. In traffic I would be
confident to cycle much closer to the kerb if I was accompanied by
another cyclist on my right. I would tend to cycle alongside only
cyclists that I knew to some extent and would therefore feel happier to
cycle much closer o them than I would to a motor vehicle whose driver i
did not know

bestwishes
james

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:09:09 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>>>However I see no
>>>room on that path for pedestrians.
>>
>> Look again.
>
>I see no room on that path for pedestrians. Other than as bollards for
>children to ride around.

Perhaps you need glasses. There is plenty of space on the left of the
path.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:09:09 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>> I have no responsibility over other adults' actions.
>
>You have no responsibility over children's actions either.

Yes I do. Some children anyway.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:23:57 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>Since you clearly know what causes seasonal variation in the numbers...
>>>yes. That you can remember the numbers just like that on a Sunday morning
>>>beggars belief.
>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>I'm afraid that it does.

What beggars belief is that you are obsessed that I can remember two
2-digit numbers.

>Others have commented on that poster's "hobbies" in different terms.
>
>I couldn't possibly comment further (and won't)...
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> I don't totally agree with his pro-cycle bias, but do please be fair!!!
>
>I have been more than fair to that poster. I don't, for instance, suggest
>that he shouldn't follow his hobby/ies or that anyone should be effectively
>applauded for endangering him whilst he is going about his business.
>
>Have we had the same courtesy from him? All he does is make excuses for
>dangerous behaviour because the danger is caused a group who are beyond
>criticism as far as he is concerned.

I put the "danger" in context.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Conor wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven says...
>> Conor wrote on 03/07/2006 17:40 +0100:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>> >
>> >> If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
>> >> shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?
>> >>
>> > Big wide path. Clearly defined areas.
>>
>> Thus instantly proving your lack of knowledge of shared used paths!
>>
>I can only go on what I see.

I hope you don't drive with a vision problem like that.

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:23:32 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
> [He doesn't cycle on footpaths]
>
> Well done. Not that I believe any cyclist denying the use of footpaths,
> because it's rather like being told that a snowball will last for a week at
> today's temperatures.

Not much point in asking the question then.
>
>
>>However, I can understand why less confident cyclists may feel safer on
>>the pavement, judging by the behaviour of a small but vociferous
>>minority of motorists.
>
>
> As a pedestrian I'd feel safer on the pavement without the behaviour of a
> large and vociferous majority of cyclists.

I doubt that it's the majority.
> I'd like to cross the road on a
> pelican crossing with the lights at red without the danger of being hit by
> a cyclist.

Or anything else, for that matter.
>
> Someday you can tell me why my fears as a pedestrian are always answered by
> cyclists pointing at motorists,

As previously said, some cyclists take to the pavements out of fear of
badly driven motor vehicles.

Fix the root cause of the problem, and then you can deal with the
ingrained habits and other delinquencies.